Bulaba Jones wrote:I'm a communist: of course I think reactionaries are the bigger threat than are neo-Nazis and their like, who themselves constitute a relatively small number.

Racism and law enforcement giving preferential treatment to whites is still alive and well. A recent example is what happened last year when a group of white terrorists took over a wildlife refuge and terrorized a small town. The Federal government, FBI, and the police literally bent over backwards to accommodate them. Even at trial, key evidence of what they did was not permitted to be used.

It was a white power demonstration organized by white supremacists. It's entirely fair to categorize people who went there to support a white power demonstration as supporting white nationalism/supremacism.

I suggest you take a look at the Charlottesville thread in Today's News, the 100-page one, where we've discussed much of this.

I am also a communist (though not an internationalist...yet). Yes, I believe that racism is alive and well but I completely disagree with the methods put forward in response. For one thing, I disagree with the current application of "white privilege", though I do believe white people have certain societal advantages. But there is intersectionality involved there that makes the whole thing grossly generalistic, counterproductive, and vulgar. To me the whole concept amounts to latte-sipping bourgeois liberals looking for people to share the blame with - using the white working class as a shield. Well the white working class need not be overcome. They, latte liberals, are the ones to be overcome. And they stand alone.

Secondly, I have a problem with the idea that only white people can be racist. I think that's a very irresponsible thing to be saying, knowing that what people understand by racism is simply racial prejudice. So it's a very irresponsible thing to be putting out there.

There is no denying that the biggest problem in society right now is a divided proletariat. And NONE of the methods used by the so-called "left" to advance "social justice" advance social justice. It's not the prerogative of a communist to defend neo-liberal heresies ridden with ID politics and vulgar collectivism. To be a communist is to fight for the working class, to unite the working class, and to empower the working class towards the end of mass-mobilization and a general strike.

@LeftNationalist You will find that many people here, myself included, are ideologically at odds with identity politics, which is itself, as you have correctly identified it as, a tool of bourgeois liberalism to divide the working class.

I never said only white people can be racist. Anyone believing that is not only extraordinarily inaccurate but massively fucking stupid. As for the rest, your criticisms of liberal identity politics have no relevance to my opinions.

I think you confused the part of my post where I pointed out that the Federal government bends over backwards to accommodate right-wing white terrorists (two excellent examples include the Malheur, Oregon incident last year, and the incident in 2014 with Cliven Bundy). While I think this has more to do with politicians wanting those assholes to succeed in order to sell off public lands to various industries and corporations, the Charlottesville demonstration was a white power demonstration organized by guys who were trying to unite conservatives with white nationalists/supremacists. The demonstration itself was lauded as a demonstration on behalf of white identity.

"I don't know if you're a detective or a pervert.""Well, that's for me to know and you to find out."

For one thing, I disagree with the current application of "white privilege", though I do believe white people have certain societal advantages.

You agree whites have privledge due to race, but you dissagree with it's current application? What does that mean?

The only way 99% of people use the term is in pointing out disparities. They do exist, and you even agree that they do. If nothing else the disparity in arrests, police shootings, random searches, convictions, and various other disparities that relate more strongly to relate to race than class or income issues show that.

Pointing those disparities out is not a bougoise liberal plot.

But there is intersectionality involved there that makes the whole thing grossly generalistic, counterproductive, and vulgar.

People often discuss how poverty intersects with this issue. Racial issues can perpetuate poverty and poverty perpetuates itself and racial bias.

Just because some college students who don't really understand the world or these issues say dumb things doesn't mean the vast majority of thinkers that support the dreaded "identity politics" don't.

To me the whole concept amounts to latte-sipping bourgeois liberals looking for people to share the blame with - using the white working class as a shield.

Pointing out racial disparities doesn't blame the white working class for them. These issues are systemic and only the fringes of identity politics movements would look at any particular white person and blame them for creating this.

Imagining some group making it all up to attack the white working class is a conspiracy attitude the distracts and detracts from these very real issues.

If you want to argue that class issues are more important that's one thing, but don't discredit these very real racial issues with assertions about it being an attack on white working class people.

They, latte liberals, are the ones to be overcome. And they stand alone.

I need to start drinking more latte's, I didn't realize they were such a diabolical drink.

Secondly, I have a problem with the idea that only white people can be racist. I think that's a very irresponsible thing to be saying, knowing that what people understand by racism is simply racial prejudice. So it's a very irresponsible thing to be putting out there.

Nobody but the extreme fringe or college nitwits believe this. Claiming most people in identity politics movements believe this is the same as claiming all feminists believe all heterosexual sex is rape. Sure you can find someone who will say it but most people think they are crazy.

There is no denying that the biggest problem in society right now is a divided proletariat. And NONE of the methods used by the so-called "left" to advance "social justice" advance social justice.

It's almost like they aren't even marxists and don't share your world view and thus have a different set of values and conception of what social justice would look like.

It's not the prerogative of a communist to defend neo-liberal heresies ridden with ID politics and vulgar collectivism. To be a communist is to fight for the working class, to unite the working class, and to empower the working class towards the end of mass-mobilization and a general strike.

No one is asking you to support the heresies of dissagreeing with you about how the world works. That doesn't delegitimize these racial issues, nor does it absolve you of admitting they exist and helping to deal with them in a practical way instead of complaining about how they are actually attacks on white working class people.

You don't have to agree with me on class issues to help push for policies that will improve millions of people's lives.

And when the shit goes down, liberals will get a bullet too.

I'd hold my breath but I have marginally helpful liberal heresies to push in the real world that will actually improve people's lives. It takes up to much time to play into your fantasy of murdering me.

The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is.

LeftNationalist wrote:I am also a communist (though not an internationalist...yet). Yes, I believe that racism is alive and well but I completely disagree with the methods put forward in response. For one thing, I disagree with the current application of "white privilege", though I do believe white people have certain societal advantages. But there is intersectionality involved there that makes the whole thing grossly generalistic, counterproductive, and vulgar. To me the whole concept amounts to latte-sipping bourgeois liberals looking for people to share the blame with - using the white working class as a shield. Well the white working class need not be overcome. They, latte liberals, are the ones to be overcome. And they stand alone.

I enjoy lattés. Two pumps of flavoured syrup and you have cake in a cup. Make it organic and fair trade and it's a warm, guilt free, sugar milk.

Now that I have established my rainbow progressive "liberal" credentials, let me explain that I am also a socialist. Have been my whole life. My parents worked for Salvador Allende.

I see no contradiction between fighting for class equality and fighting for any other type of equality. In fact, I think that the struggles against raxism and the struggles against capitalism are intertwined and by attacking one, you attack the other.

Intersectionality is a thing. It is a way of helping us understand how people can be marginalised and/or oppressed in different ways, and how those power dynamics can influence each other. We do ourselves a disservice if we ignore this in our attempts to dismantle the capitalist structure, since we would be deliberately blinding ourselves to some of the ways in which capitalism maintains power.

Secondly, I have a problem with the idea that only white people can be racist. I think that's a very irresponsible thing to be saying, knowing that what people understand by racism is simply racial prejudice. So it's a very irresponsible thing to be putting out there.

It is a way of pointing out that racism has a social impact that is affected by more than just racial prejudice. The definition of racism as "prejudice plus systemic power" clarifies how those groups with more power have more impact on society. This is why it makes no sense to equate the racism of black individuals with the systemic racism tha favours whites in the US, which would be implied if we defined both as simply "racism".

It would be like reducing the struggle against capitalism to "classism" and saying that both sides do it.

There is no denying that the biggest problem in society right now is a divided proletariat. And NONE of the methods used by the so-called "left" to advance "social justice" advance social justice. It's not the prerogative of a communist to defend neo-liberal heresies ridden with ID politics and vulgar collectivism. To be a communist is to fight for the working class, to unite the working class, and to empower the working class towards the end of mass-mobilization and a general strike.

And when the shit goes down, liberals will get a bullet too.

How is it a neo-liberal heresy to unite the working class by getting rid of our own racism, sexism, and other bigotries that divide the working class?

This is a perfect example why this "alt-left" movement is self-defeating and every bit as ugly as the "alt-right" movement. This "person" makes it crystal clear that he advocates for violent confrontation in order to stamp out any ideals he finds unacceptable. Even going so far as to advocate violence on people who have no interest in it.May I suggest that when you make grandiose statements about encouraging violence, you may find yourself in a fight with a "pack" of guys who are very familiar with violence. Not just a couple of highschool kids, but men who use violence as a tool.

You will always get what you "pay for".Make sure you know what you're buying.

Buzz62 wrote:This is a perfect example why this "alt-left" movement is self-defeating and every bit as ugly as the "alt-right" movement. This "person" makes it crystal clear that he advocates for violent confrontation in order to stamp out any ideals he finds unacceptable. Even going so far as to advocate violence on people who have no interest in it.

Are you talking about me?

Because I never advocated what you claim.

In fact, I advocate violence to defend yourself against racists and fascists. Because racists and fascists usually support and enact violent confrontation in order to stamp out any ideals they find unacceptable.

May I suggest that when you make grandiose statements about encouraging violence, you may find yourself in a fight with a "pack" of guys who are very familiar with violence. Not just a couple of highschool kids, but men who use violence as a tool.

You will always get what you "pay for".Make sure you know what you're buying.

I see. Now you are trying to blame me for the fact that in Regina, decades ago, carloads of men would drive around looking for minoriities to beat up, and when I defended myself or others against these guys, it was magically my fault.

In fact, I advocate violence to defend yourself against racists and fascists. Because racists and fascists usually support and enact violent confrontation in order to stamp out any ideals they find unacceptable.

In defense, I would advocate it too.However it is generally the case that the self-proclaimed anti-fascists, are the ones instigating violence. Isn't it...It is the IDEA that these "alt-lefties" have, that they can demand people act and thing the things THEY APPROVE OF, that is turning people off, and will cause the left wing political parties to find it very difficult to maintain power.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I see. Now you are trying to blame me for the fact that in Regina, decades ago, carloads of men would drive around looking for minoriities to beat up, and when I defended myself or others against these guys, it was magically my fault.

Buzz62 wrote:In defense, I would advocate it too.However it is generally the case that the self-proclaimed anti-fascists, are the ones instigating violence. Isn't it...

No.

Provide evidence for this claim.

It is the IDEA that these "alt-lefties" have, that they can demand people act and thing the things THEY APPROVE OF, that is turning people off, and will cause the left wing political parties to find it very difficult to maintain power.

Every group and ideology does this.

Why is it oh so bad when anti-racists and anti-fascists do it?

Dude, that was decades ago.

What does that have to do with the fact that you are blaming me for the violence of racist people?

Because every group does not do this.Groups do advocate their positions on things, but they don't go around seeking out confrontations with their adversaries. Instead, they LEGALLY make their point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What does that have to do with the fact that you are blaming me for the violence of racist people?

Decades...POD.You cannot win a social debate on racism, if you insist on picking fights with people, who EXPECT you to show up to pick fights. You will always be identified as the SOURCE of the violence, and will lose the debate.And they are losing.

So when you say that something generally happens, what you really mean is that you know of a single time when it happened.

Because every group does not do this.Groups do advocate their positions on things, but they don't go around seeking out confrontations with their adversaries. Instead, they LEGALLY make their point.

This is a different claim than the one you just made.

Try to keep track of your actual argument.

And if you think that these white supremacist groups are not looking for violence, then you are incorrect.

Decades...POD.You cannot win a social debate on racism, if you insist on picking fights with people, who EXPECT you to show up to pick fights. You will always be identified as the SOURCE of the violence, and will lose the debate.And they are losing.

It's like you are not listening.

I did not pick fights with anyone.

I defended myself when they came looking for a fight.

And the fact that it happened decades ago does not, in any way, have anything to do with the fact that you are blaming me for the violence of others.